Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raja Morre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36790
1 CRA-1896-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1896 of 2025
RAJA MORRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Surdeep Khampariya - Advocate for the appellant .
Shri Nitin Gupta - Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent/State.
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is taken
up for final hearing at motion stage. I.A.No.4060/2025 is disposed of.
2. The appellant is aggrieved of judgment dated 13.9.2024 passed by
the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) and SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, Betul in S.C.No.24/2022 whereby he has been
convicted and sentenced in the following terms:-
In default of
Conviction Sentence Fine
payment of fine
R.I. for 03 R.I. for 06
363 IPC Rs.1,000/-
years months
R.I. for 05 R.I. for 06
366 IPC Rs.2,000/-
years months
5(l)/6 of POCSO Act r/w R.I. for 20
Rs.5,000/- R.I. for 01 year
376(2)(n) of IPC years
R.I. for 03 R.I. for 06
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36790
2 CRA-1896-2025
450 IPC years Rs.1,000/- months
RI. for 02 R.I. for 02
506 Part-II IPC Rs.1,000/-
years months
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that victim is a
consenting adult. She was major at the time of the incident, therefore, mere
positivity of DNA profile as contained in Exhibit-P/23 is not sufficient to
record conviction of the appellant.
4. Reading from the evidence of PW.2 (mother of the victim) it is
submitted that she has admitted that when victim had accompanied the
accused person, that time she was carrying her mobile. Thereafter, she has
admitted that for the first time, name of the victim was registered in a school
at Betul. Thereafter, she studied at village Babai and thereafter at village
Dondwara. She further states that it is correct to say that firstly victim was
admitted in Betul and thereafter in village school as a result of which she lost
1-2 years, therefore, her age was recorded by reducing it by one year. Thus, it
is submitted that victim was major at the time of incident. She being a
consenting party, its a case of acquittal.
5. Shri Nitin Gupta, learned Government Advocate opposes the
prayer and prays for dismissal of appeal.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, it is found that victim (PW.1) admits that accused-Raja Morre is
known to her. Her primary education was given to her in a government
school of her village. She has her parents and a younger brother in the
family. At the time of incident she was studying in the Class-IXth at village
Dondwara Government Higher Secondary School.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36790
3 CRA-1896-2025
7. She admitted that since she failed in Class-Xth, she had left the
studies. The victim also admitted that accused was involved in harvesting of
gram crop in the fields close to her house. He used to visit her house asking
for water. She has admitted that accused had taken her against her wish by
dragging her to Sadar Betul. She stated that she had travelled with the
accused on foot from her village to Sadar Betul. She had cried for help, but
way to Betul was vacant. She admits that accused had kept her at his
relative's house for 05 days. Thereafter, appellant had taken her by Bus to
Sarni where again he had violated her privacy. She was kept at Sarni for 05
days. It is stated that he was threatening her throughout. In paragraph 7 of
her cross-examination victim (PW.1) admits that her parents had given her
mobile which is being used by her. She admits that her parents had reduced
her age and admitted that earlier she studied in a school at Betul and
thereafter she was brought to village for admission where her age was
reduced.
8. In paragraph 8 of her cross-examination she admits that she had
acquaintance with the appellant. Though she denies that they had exchanged
their mobile numbers but stated that appellant had snatched her mobile. She
admitted that she had not informed her parents about snatching of mobile.
She had also not informed her parents that appellant was visiting her house
on the pretext of consuming water. She also admits that there are several
other houses in close proximity to her house and in her house grand-parents
and uncle are also residing. She admits that she had not informed her parents
that appellant had caught hold of her and violated her privacy on their return
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36790
4 CRA-1896-2025
to home in evening, on which her privacy was violated. She admits in
paragraph 11 that distance from her village to Betul is about 18-20 Kms., it is
connected by 'pacca damar' road and there is lot of traffic on the said road.
On asking that when being dragged that she sustained any injury, she states
that she had sustained very light injuries, however, they are not corroborated
by the MLC Doctor.
9. PW.2- mother of the victim admits in paragraphs 9 & 10 that age
of the victim was written in the school of her village after she was withdrawn
from a school at Betul. Thus, it is evident that apart from admission, PW.1
(victim) & PW.2 (mother of victim) admitted that age of victim was recorded
in the school after reducing it by one year. There is failure of the prosecution
to recover Admission Register of the first school, which was attended by the
victim at Betul.
10. PW.3-Aganwadi Karyakarta, states that she has no knowledge
about the date of birth of the victim and had recorded it, as was informed to
her.
11. PW.4, father of the victim, admits in cross-examination that
when he had met the victim at Police Station then she was wearing
vermillion in her hair parting and was also wearing a 'mangalsutra'. She had
stated that she was not willing to go with her parents and wanted to
accompany the accused only.
12. PW.6-Dr.Isha Daniel stated that no definite opinion could be
given in regard to intercourse. She had asked for opinion of Radiologist to
determine the age but it is evident, no radiological report, is available on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36790
5 CRA-1896-2025
record to point out that what was the result of ossification test, etc.
13. PW.10-School Teacher, Subhash Chandra Deshmukh, admits
that date of birth of the victim was recorded on the basis of transfer
certificate and no birth certificate was produced at the time of the admission
of the victim.
14. When aforesaid evidence is taken into consideration then there is
admission of the victim (PW.1) and her mother (PW.2) that they had reduced
the age of the victim by one year when she was admitted in school at village.
That makes her major because in a school record date of birth is mentioned
as 09.9.2004 but it will be of year 2003 in actual, as per the admission of
mother of the victim, and date of incident is 31.3.2022.
15. As far as ossification test report is concerned that is not available
on record. Supreme Court in Sunil Vs. State of Haryana , (2010) 1 SCC 742
has held that in a case of allegation of rape of minor, prosecution not
conducting examinations by dental surgeon or radiologist on prosecutrix,
inpite of being referred to for such examination by the doctor creates doubt
on the prosecution story.
16. In the present case, apart from that doubt being available, there is
also evidence of mother of victim that she was major at the time of the
incident. Father of the victim has admitted that when he had met the victim
for the first time at Police Station she was wearing all the signs of a married
woman and had shown her disinterest in accompanying her parents and
wanted to accompany the accused. These all facts reveal that prosecutrix was
consenting adult and she had gone on her own volition inasmuch contrary to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36790
6 CRA-1896-2025
her testimony that she was dragged, there is no medical evidence to
corroborate that she was being dragged on the State Highway going from
village to Betul being frequently travelled by several passengers as admitted
by the victim. Thus, its being a case of consent, conviction of the appellant
under sections 363, 366 IPC, 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act r/w 376(2)(n) IPC, 450 &
506 Part-II of IPC cannot be sustained.
17. The impugned judgment of conviction is set aside. Appeal is
allowed. If the custody of appellant is not required in any other case, he be
released forthwith. Property of the case be disposed in terms of direction of
the trial Court.
18. Let record of the trial Court be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
RM
